AJAI LAMBA, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed to seek a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 143 of 2014 under Sections 419,420,467,468,469 and 471 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kotwali City Hardoi.
(2.) LEARNED counsel, on the basis of various documents and orders passed under Consolidation laws has vehemently argued that no offence has been committed. Clerical error can be corrected under consolidation laws. An application was made in the year 2012 to correct such an error in order dated 20.1.1958. In view of the documents filed with the petition, it has been pleaded that order dated 1.10.2013 could not have been passed by this Court in Consolidation Case No. 532 of 2013, Sunder and others Vs. State of U.P. And others.
(3.) WE have considered the contention of learned counsel. This Court in Sunder's case passed the following order: - "Petitioners had filed application under section 42 of U.P.C.H. Act taking a fantastic case that on 20.01.1958, i.e. more that 50 years before Assistant Consolidation Officer had passed some order in their favour which could not be carried out in the records, hence, it must be incorporated therein. It was alleged that through the order of 1958(05.5.1958) the name of Jawahar was directed to be scored off from Khata No.80 and at his place name of Mendai predecessor in interest of the petitioners was directed to be entered. C.O. Hardoi on 26.02.2013 gave report that second round of consolidation in the area in question started through notification under section 4(2) of the Act on 26.7.1986, however, that notification was withdrawn by another notification under section 6 of the Act on 31.12.2004. In the second round of consolidation which remained pending from 1986 to 2004 no objection was filed by petitioners for recording their names. The application was filed on 12.6.2012. Through order dated 28.02.2013 Joint Director of Consolidation, Lucknow (Camp Hardoi) rejected the application accepting the report dated 26.02.2013. In case, some order had been passed in the year 1958, it would have been incorporated in the revenue records. In any case, it is inconceivable that if due to any inadvertence the order was not carried out in the records, petitioners on their ancestor would have remained silent for 54 years. It was purely a fraud which was being played by the petitioners by forging the order of 1958 and seeking mutation of their names on the basis of the said order. Interestingly, coy of the said order has not been annexed along with the writ petition. Accordingly, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition, hence, it is dismissed. The Joint Director of consolidation Lucknow camp Hardoi may consider as to whether it is appropriate to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners for forging the copy of order and misusing the process of court on the basis of the same. Annexure 4 to the writ petition is copy of a report dated 20.6.2012 given by the consolidator to the A.C.O. on the petitioner's application under Rule 109 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The A.C.O. probably did not agree with the report and mentioned at the bottom of the report that thorough investigation was utmost essential. Criminal as well as disciplinary proceedings be also initiated against the consolidator who gave the report dated 20.6.2012. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Shri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional C.S.C. Perusal of the above extracted order passed by this Court, particularly the emphasized portion, indicates that this Court while considering the issue observed that possibly a fraud has been committed by way of forging order of the year 1958.;